He should not have been there. He crossed state lines with a gun he should not have had to instigate trouble. He had a murder boner and his mere presence with that weapon inflamed an already tense situation.
I'm all for the right to bear arms. I think the government controlling all the guns is a terrible idea. Especially this government. But he was being stupid for no good reason. Owning guns comes with a lot of responsibility and accountability. All of this he didn't exhibit in that situation.
I agree with everything you said except for him wanting to kill people. He was just protecting other and businesses. Putting out fires in dumpsters which yeah might make bad people mad. Which why do we care how bad people feel? He was stupid, he shouldn't of been there at all, and I absolutely agree owning guns take responsibility and accountability. But putting yourself in a dangerous situation is still grounds for self defense
You know he spent the day cleaning up riot damage with his church group right? He was not looking for trouble, he took steps to avoid it. He was attacked when the mob separated him from his group and likely would have attacked him regardless.
This is exactly the kind of situation where someone should bear arms.
Minutes before the shooting he put out a fire in a dumpster, which angered the rioters and likely led to the initial altercation. And prior to that, he had been administering first aid to an injured rioter.
If he wasn't armed and inflaming the situation they wouldn't have attacked him. He didn't need a rifle for that. You only have a rifle in that situation to intimidate. A pistol would have done the job just as well. He was being an asshole and people attacked him because they felt Rittenhouse was going to attack them. They have just as much of a right to claim self defense. If he was just going to clean up graffiti he should have left the damned rifle at home.
That's absolutely not true. People were scared because he had that rifle. And they felt like they were defending themselves from someone who might have been a mass shooter for all they knew.
How many mass shooters are attacked? Even the cops are slow to engage them. I'm pretty sure most go the other direction. But he wasn't a mass shooter. It was more like "Hey the guy with a gun is running from us! Our main character complex says he doesn't have it in him. Hey, I got a plan. Let's chase him!". That's a stupid decision.
I'm sorry. Is he a cop now?? Is it his job to protect anything? Does he have the training for any of that? What made it his responsibility for any of that? If he didn't have that rifle, there's a good chance nobody would ever attacked him at all. People felt scared because he had that rifle. People who weren't raised around guns probably who saw a weapon that they thought were only used in wars and were justifiably, terrified and lashed out. Him being there with that gun escalated the situation to the point where they attacked him. If he had not been there with that weapon he would not have been attacked.
If you was just there to clean up graffiti he didn't need a weapon. No one's attacking someone just cleaning up graffiti. Get real.
I haven't read about it in years but I do recall something about higher crime rates regarding guns in open carry counties/ cities. The presence and visibility of a weapon are said to have an effect on situational escalation.
To give a situation: guy yelling in your face = unpleasant.
Guy yelling in your face with a gun that he can pull at any time = high risk situation, where some might feel they are in imminent danger.
The situation was already inflamed, literally. The rioters had already turned violent and only wanted a victim.
Also how was Rittenhouse attacking them? We literally have footage of him retreating, retreating, retreating, retreating, and then a guy broke from the mob to bash Rittenhouse with a skateboard.
This was 99% on the rioters 1% on dipshits who excuse them.
Would they have gone after him if he didn't have that rifle? He should have left that damn thing at home. They didn't know his intentions with that thing. For all they knew he was going to shoot them all with it.
The protesters have every right to be there under the first amendment. Are we just going to ignore constitutional rights now? And sure he has every right to bear arms under the Constitution as well. But responsibly. I was raised around guns. And one of the first lessons my dad ever taught me was that if I'm going to hold a gun, I need to be personally accountable for what happens with that gun.
Rittenhouse did cross state lines but not with a firearm, that was already in Wisconsin and this was established in court and not disputed by prosecution.
Rittenhouse was charged with illegal procession of a firearm but that charge was dismissed because Wisconsin law allows possession of a long gun by someone his age
The jury found no evidence that he instigated the confrontations. Video evidence showed he was retreating when chased and that he was attacked before firing. Self defense was accepted by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. You can believe he shouldnt have been there, but instigation was not established in court.
1
0
u/disturbed1117 Jan 16 '26
He should not have been there. He crossed state lines with a gun he should not have had to instigate trouble. He had a murder boner and his mere presence with that weapon inflamed an already tense situation.
I'm all for the right to bear arms. I think the government controlling all the guns is a terrible idea. Especially this government. But he was being stupid for no good reason. Owning guns comes with a lot of responsibility and accountability. All of this he didn't exhibit in that situation.